[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I see your point about the word "believe" perhaps carrying connotations in the eyes of the mainstream public.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good.

[ QUOTE ]
Still, "Scientists are convinced that X is true" (on the basis of evidence) might just as well be stated as "Scientists believe X to be true" (on the basis of evidence).


[/ QUOTE ]

The parenthetical part is unnecessary if simply rephrased. And is in fact more emphatic and stronger writing. So this involves style also. See my link to the USGS Style Guide.


[ QUOTE ]
Even mathematical proofs require the acceptance of prior axioms. Without an effective "belief" in prior axioms, the proof won't work.



[/ QUOTE ]

And I thought I was pedantic.

By the way, I have published or been involved in producing numerous scientific and technical reports and papers. The word belief or believe does not appear in any of them. The word opinion is also avoided (and never used when fact is meant) and the substitute is usually professional judgment, or the data suggests, etc., when dealing with concepts of a speculative nature. But again I probably should not expect those standards here.

-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it may be that your aversion to the concept of belief without proof, has colored your perception of the proper usage of the word "belief" itself. "Belief" does not require non-rational faith. It is not wrong to say that you believe in something of which you are fully convinced on entirely rational grounds. I suspect you cannot bring yourself to perceive the pure meaning of the word due to a personal aversion to faith-based belief. However, "to believe" does not always necessitate or include the suspension of reason, nor does it require some degree of uncertainty.

There would be little or no reason for scientists to use the word when discussing scientific concepts amongst themselves, and as you say, you have not found the word in scientific journals. For an outsider reporting on their discussions, though, it may be a useful shorthand and not inaccurate.

As elsewhere, it is not wrong to say that you believe that 2+2 = 4. Until the 20th century, scientists believed more comprehensively in Newton's laws than they do today.

Saying "to scientists, the data suggests" is not significantly different than saying "to scientists, it appears likely, based on the data", which is not much different than saying "scientists believe it likely to be true, based on the data, that..." or "scientists consider it likely to be true, based on the data, that..."

I think you may be hung up because you perceive "believe" to contain an inherent element of faith or uncertainty. There is nothing in the definition of the word which requires those things, though. If you KNOW something, you also by definition BELIEVE it. If you believe something, though, you may not know it. The act of knowing is a very specific subset of the act of believing.

I think you are probably slightly hung up on the connotations of the word "belief" and therefore may not be perceiving the word in its pure essence.

I'm not trying to be pedantic; I'm just defending the word "belief" and trying to keep it from being unfairly categorized, so to speak. A belief may be faith-based or scientifically-based: to believe refers to what human beings think or conclude, not to the data. Scientists believe in their conclusions, do they not?

Thanks for reading.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, posters on 2+2 have a nasty habit of making equivocation errors whenever I say I 'believe' in anything, but thats probably irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is an equivocation error (I don't know what it is)? And, why is it nasty?